We're on the verge of crossing the point where geoengineering is the only viable solution. However, nobody really wants to do this because of how risky it is. There's always unforseen consequences, and if you're trying to engineer the global climate, who the hell knows what could go wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

You could try being optimistic, like: after Trump is gone, america will come to its senses and take the lead in combatting climate change... But that's obviously not gonna happen. About half our population will fight any action on climate change, no matter what.

Moderately fucked, but it depends on your definition of fucking. Certainly, the world will change. Almost inevitably, some parts of the earth that are now habitable won't be. There may be food crises, but that might be offset by a greening north (most of earth's land mass is in the northern hemisphere.) There will almost certainly be water crises unless we can improve desalination technology and fast.

However, unless in the process of that we start going crazy (as we are liable to do) nothing about that is an existential threat to our species. We would survive it...however, 90% of animal species probably wouldn't. I imagine the 22nd century will be kinda like the world of Blade Runner...animals and forests are something you read about in books and museums, while almost all available space is converted to high tech farms to eke out enough calories to feed the planet using the few remaining (probably insect) species for food.

Alternatively, the AI may take over during this century and put an end to all this nonsense before that can happen. That's our actual best case scenario.

>>79191the solution is to first replace all of the GHG-producing crap with non-GHG-producing crap, particularly electricity generation (to solar/wind/nuclear generation with hydro/battery storage) and transportation (to battery electric), but also we need to deal with fertilizer, cement, landfills and cows, roughly in that order. only AFTER that is completed we can start fucking with aerosols or satellites or other weird ideas

Humans are the problem, so let's make 'inverse humans' to balance the equation and reach stability.

Humans are a carbon-based machine that chaotically pollutes the environment by consuming oxygen and organic tissue for energy and expels carbon dioxide and bacterial mats(poo.)

Our robot is therefore a silicon-based (silicon is much more abundant on earth than carbon) machine which runs an organized program to clean its environment, consuming carbon dioxide and bacteria to sustain internal bioreactors that exhale oxygen and produce sugar, which then powers the machine. Then we need 7 billion of them.

We're never going to make humans be better or more responsible, it's utterly futile to try to bet on some 'better angels of our nature' solution. We need to design something that, as it seeks it's own natural path of least resistance, naturally counter-weights our own natural path of least resistance.

>>79223Well, humans aren't made of bacterial mats, so no, my suggestion was robots that consume human poop for nutrients and breathe human exhale to fix carbon into sucrose. Like all lifeforms, they would only engage in the behaviors they were programmed to do, so if we gave them the instinct to fear and obey humans, they would. However, even if they went out of control and killed off humanity, they would do more for balancing the ecosystem in that than we've ever done. From the standpoint of survival for life on earth, it's a win-win scenario.

>>79299It's a method of slowing the collapse of the housing bubble. This significantly raises the cost of constructing new homes, in a way that the scales are entirely fucked against cheaper homes. It's a means of market manipulation.